I really like what I see, no kidding. You've put a lot of thought and work into it already, which is going to pay off dividends as your map gets closer to quench. Could you please edit your Design Briefed map title into the topic title and note what pages the most recent version is on? Official policy to ease feedback by folks.

TaCktiX wrote:I really like what I see, no kidding. You've put a lot of thought and work into it already, which is going to pay off dividends as your map gets closer to quench. Could you please edit your Design Briefed map title into the topic title and note what pages the most recent version is on? Official policy to ease feedback by folks.

I agree man... this guy has a GREAT map in the stage one area... and It looks fun.

I like just about everything about this map. From the colors to the textures to the font to the number of territs. The only thing that needs some attention is the mountains. Whats new ? they are always the hardest thing to make right for all mapmakers. They seem to be drawn allright, just the color is what I am having a problem with.

porkenbeans wrote:...The only thing that needs some attention is the mountains.

Hand-draw them. That's what I did for Research and Conquer, and I've heard nothing but praise about them. (And a kudos to RjBeals for showing me a PDF explaining how to do it, don't have link sadly, he might still)

The bonus Hnal (I think that's how you spell it) at 4 is way too much. The whole map will revolve around taking this single territory to get a bonus of 4. It terms of gameplay that being a bonus of 4 or even a bonus of 2 ruins it for me. I think you could get away with it being a bonus of 2 but 1 seems plenty. Perhaps expand that Hnal to two territories and keep it a bonus of 2 or less.

The bonus Hnal (I think that's how you spell it) at 4 is way too much. The whole map will revolve around taking this single territory to get a bonus of 4. It terms of gameplay that being a bonus of 4 or even a bonus of 2 ruins it for me. I think you could get away with it being a bonus of 2 but 1 seems plenty. Perhaps expand that Hnal to two territories and keep it a bonus of 2 or less.

The bonus is called "Ifnal" I'll try to make that more clear, or I might change it. That's definitely the territory that I have changed around the most. It's interesting, because if I you can build off that start building off that far western corner early enough you can defend a lot of territory with very little effort, but at the time, this is easy to recognize so it usually stays contested most of the early part of the game. We tried reducing it to 3 once, that worked ok. Another thing we tried is having that island "caspiar" hook up to the far western territory "Ionsfee". That actually made it kind of a pain in the ass to hold. It sort of works, but if we did that, it should stay worth 4. Over all I see you're concern that "he who controls that bonus controls the game" it definitely is a strategy that can work, but it isn't the only one. I've played 6 games on this map, 2 games were won that way, the other 4 were not.

Sorry if this has already been brought up, but, the size is way to big. It needs to be no larger than 840x800

The bonus Hnal (I think that's how you spell it) at 4 is way too much. The whole map will revolve around taking this single territory to get a bonus of 4. It terms of gameplay that being a bonus of 4 or even a bonus of 2 ruins it for me. I think you could get away with it being a bonus of 2 but 1 seems plenty. Perhaps expand that Hnal to two territories and keep it a bonus of 2 or less.

The bonus is called "Ifnal" I'll try to make that more clear, or I might change it. That's definitely the territory that I have changed around the most. It's interesting, because if I you can build off that start building off that far western corner early enough you can defend a lot of territory with very little effort, but at the time, this is easy to recognize so it usually stays contested most of the early part of the game. We tried reducing it to 3 once, that worked ok. Another thing we tried is having that island "caspiar" hook up to the far western territory "Ionsfee". That actually made it kind of a pain in the ass to hold. It sort of works, but if we did that, it should stay worth 4. Over all I see you're concern that "he who controls that bonus controls the game" it definitely is a strategy that can work, but it isn't the only one. I've played 6 games on this map, 2 games were won that way, the other 4 were not.

Hmmm, I see you point about the western corner. All the same if I were playing this game and was next to Ifnal that's what I would go for every time. What if you make Ifnal start neutral 4-6. That way it's harder to conquer but is still a factor in the game that can be utilized. 5 neutral to me is perfect, but I think you might prefer less. At the very least this should start neutral if it doesn't already, someone getting a drop with a bonus of 4 to start is ridiculous.

Hmmm, I see you point about the western corner. All the same if I were playing this game and was next to Ifnal that's what I would go for every time. What if you make Ifnal start neutral 4-6. That way it's harder to conquer but is still a factor in the game that can be utilized. 5 neutral to me is perfect, but I think you might prefer less. At the very least this should start neutral if it doesn't already, someone getting a drop with a bonus of 4 to start is ridiculous.

hmmm... that's a thought, however that might be too much if every territory was neutral. Keep in mind no one starts with that bonus automatically. How about this. We bump the Ifnal bonus down to 3 and start Rolloland out as a neutral territory with 5 neutrals on it.

hmmm... that's a thought, however that might be too much if every territory was neutral. Keep in mind no one starts with that bonus automatically. How about this. We bump the Ifnal bonus down to 3 and start Rolloland out as a neutral territory with 5 neutrals on it.

I think that would work well in my opinion. Rolloland 5 nuetral as a 3 bonus is great.

Alright The Bison King I just realized something and I feel silly for this

I thought Rollaland was the only territory of Ifnal. I didnt realize you split the country like that. Perhaps that's some feedback in and of itself to make Rollaland more color orientated with the rest of Ifnal.

Disregard everything I said about making rollaland neutral 5. It doesn't need to be nuetral at all and I think it was perfectly fine as a bonus of 4 in its original state that you had it in. Sorry if you spent much extra time on this. Thanks for listening all the same. I was wondering why you orriginally said making all of the territories nuetral would be to much lol.

Industrial Helix wrote:I'd like to see some numbers on the map because I think the small map, and some places on the large map, are too tight to fit numbers. The map must accommodate most of the name plus the numbers.

I think if you fiddle with the names and borders you can make it happen. This should help as well:

Yes, I have already mentioned that some of the territs are way too small. You have plenty of room, so just do some redrawing, and make them larger. This one detail is the only bad thing about this map. Otherwise, it is absolutely gorgeous.

Ok, the administrators were requesting that I ad some more dynamic to the game play, so this is what I have to offer.

6 potential rail bonuses. These would work in the same fashion as the Indian Empire map. As in, there are not any rail station territories (Those little circles at the end of the tracks are NOT territories) instead the bonus is acquired by controlling all territories along the path of the tracks. I kind of high balled it on the amount of rail bonuses. I think it might be wise to cut 1 or 2 out, but maybe not. I really need to test it more to say for sure.

I kept the rail bonuses purposefully small, since several of them build of preexisting bonuses.

One of the things that I am happy about is that this ads greater significance to the Caprinthian territories, Which usually remain relatively inactivity until mid or end game on account of it being a hard bonus to hold. That being said having 2 rail bonuses run through it runs the threat of it becoming too easy to hold so I think that one of them should be removed.

Also the +5 In the far North might be too high what do you think?

BTW this obviously is NOT what the final graphics will look like and is just a draft to show you what is going on in my head.

Any way, there is a lot here to think about and tweak so please give me your feedback. The main things I am interested in hearing is whether the bonuses are to high or low, if there are too many of them, or if the map needs them at all.

I look forward to your comments, and hopefully this map will move into the game play workshop soon!

What if a territory on either end of the rail could use the rail to move troops and attack the end station, similar to the use of rails in the late 19th and early 20th century?

The numbers are a good addition and I see that the only major problems you have are the micronations, like Azuran, Illania and Alus. The islands are unrecognizable with numbers, but perhaps those could be moved off the island, similar to what I did on Italian Unification. I'd highly recommend redrawing the micronation borders or doing away with them altogether.

The small map is overly cramped, perhaps with a little photoshopping you could expand the size of the land and shrink the sea some. I don't know how you're going to fit he rails on there as well.

I'd also like to see some sort of resources or factories, rails are a good start though.

I'd also like to suggest that maybe, given the graphical feel of the map, that industrial era might not be the best theme for this map. Maps like Research and Conquer carry the industrial theme much better, with a steampunk sort of feel to the graphics. This map speaks more like tribal or ancient empires to me. A land with a more mythical quality than coal and iron... plus the sail ship, versus steamers, helps to drive this feel. Perhaps you ought to take it in that direction?

Industrial Helix wrote:What if a territory on either end of the rail could use the rail to move troops and attack the end station, similar to the use of rails in the late 19th and early 20th century?

The numbers are a good addition and I see that the only major problems you have are the micronations, like Azuran, Illania and Alus. The islands are unrecognizable with numbers, but perhaps those could be moved off the island, similar to what I did on Italian Unification. I'd highly recommend redrawing the micronation borders or doing away with them altogether.

The small map is overly cramped, perhaps with a little photoshopping you could expand the size of the land and shrink the sea some. I don't know how you're going to fit he rails on there as well.

I'd also like to see some sort of resources or factories, rails are a good start though.

I'd also like to suggest that maybe, given the graphical feel of the map, that industrial era might not be the best theme for this map. Maps like Research and Conquer carry the industrial theme much better, with a steampunk sort of feel to the graphics. This map speaks more like tribal or ancient empires to me. A land with a more mythical quality than coal and iron... plus the sail ship, versus steamers, helps to drive this feel. Perhaps you ought to take it in that direction?

Nice eye IH,I agree with that assessment. The soft pastel watercolor, does not lend itself very well to an industrial theme.

I dig, instead of rail road tracks, Trade routes. Maybe a little reminiscent of Roman roads in places. I like the idea of the idea of interconectability with the ends of the roads. I might ad in a few stops in a few places like Iskul and Crygnotica (under "+5").

If I am understanding he correctly...

The Rail "Road or route" Bonuses work in this fashion:

To obtain the bonus you must hold all territories along the path of the rail "road"

Any territory along the path of the road with a circle on it can attack any other territory along the path of the route with a circle on it.

I need to find a way of condensing that for the final.

I like this rule a lot. There is only one problem I have with it. I want Dalmus to still be able to act as a barrier. What's the point of having a barrier between two bonuses if you can just go right past it?

However that is a problem that is easily fixed by just redrawing the path with a break with it, and have a little note about it. I'll do a new draft soon, it'll make sense. So really I am quite content with this.

However, I am still convinced that there are too many road bonuses and that one or two from the west side should be removed. I'm thinking either one of the ones that runs through Caprinthia, or the far North path (The one along Solonabirsk and Skyatica worth +5).

I like what IH said. Having the ends attack each other is a nice add on to the rails or routes I should say.

I think you should remove the +5 route in the north and move the +2 rail that runs from [Arleus - Denmarn] run from [Denmarn - Northern Frontier] instead. That way you have a rail in every country and it doesn't take up as much space as the +5 rail. Also it wont get in the way of the names of the territories up north.

Lastly I think your +1 route [Hellengar - Theraland] is too low of a bonus. It runs through 5 territories at the moment. I think you should make this +2 and I don't think it should run through Iskul. 4 territories is enough and if you don't have it go through Iskul it won't block out the name of the Tuskaroja territory.

I want Dalmus to still be able to act as a barrier. What's the point of having a barrier between two bonuses if you can just go right past it?

However that is a problem that is easily fixed by just redrawing the path with a break with it, and have a little note about it. I'll do a new draft soon, it'll make sense. So really I am quite content with this.

Scratch that I was being an idiot. Here is a better solution. Each territory with a circle on it can only attack the next territory along the path with a circle on it. Also I'll change the circle to be representative of a fort or castle.

I think you should remove the +5 route in the north and move the +2 rail that runs from [Arleus - Denmarn] run from [Denmarn - Northern Frontier] instead. That way you have a rail in every country and it doesn't take up as much space as the +5 rail. Also it wont get in the way of the names of the territories up north.

That's pretty good but instead of ending it at Denmarn I think it might be better to end it in Northern Caprinthia. I'll probably drop it down to +3 or +4 If I do that.

Lastly I think your +1 route [Hellengar - Theraland] is too low of a bonus. It runs through 5 territories at the moment. I think you should make this +2 and I don't think it should run through Iskul. 4 territories is enough and if you don't have it go through Iskul it won't block out the name of the Tuskaroja territory.

I agree that it should not run through Iskul. I disagree with it needing to be more than +1. My reason behind this is because if someone succeeds in taking the entire eastern half of the map (from Far West Tytheria, to Itherania) They can hold a +5, +2, +3, +3, +2 bonus for only 4 territories. +1 is enough. In fact I am also strongly considering removing the path from Thessisimess to Chunjaris, and haveing the remaining path (Chunjaris to Dalmus to Theraland, be dropped down to +1 as well.

Ok, I just had an idea, this is all very stream of consciousness so bear with me.

In the East: the norther pass should run from Hellengar to Tuskaroja to Itheria, to Theraland and should be worth +2. (I changed my mind that's a good idea because...)

The southern pass through the desert will only run from Chunjaris, to Dalmus, to Therraland, and be worth +1